On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:29:00AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 03/29/2017 11:21 AM, James Hogan wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 02:08:32PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >>   include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> >>
> >> between commits:
> >>
> >>   a8a3c426772e ("KVM: MIPS: Add VZ & TE capabilities")
> >>   578fd61d2d21 ("KVM: MIPS: Add 64BIT capability")
> >>
> >> from the kvm-mips tree and commit:
> >>
> >>   4e0b1ab72b8a ("KVM: s390: gs support for kvm guests")
> >>
> >> from the kvms390 tree.
> >>
> >> It looks like someone needs to arbitrate on these KVM_CAP_ numbers ...
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> >> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> >> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> >> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> >> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> >> complex conflicts.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Cheers,
> >> Stephen Rothwell
> >>
> >> diff --cc include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> >> index 1e1a6c728a18,c9d522765f8f..000000000000
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> >> @@@ -887,9 -883,7 +887,10 @@@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt 
> >>   #define KVM_CAP_PPC_MMU_RADIX 134
> >>   #define KVM_CAP_PPC_MMU_HASH_V3 135
> >>   #define KVM_CAP_IMMEDIATE_EXIT 136
> >>  -#define KVM_CAP_S390_GS 137
> >>  +#define KVM_CAP_MIPS_VZ 137
> >>  +#define KVM_CAP_MIPS_TE 138
> >>  +#define KVM_CAP_MIPS_64BIT 139
> >> ++#define KVM_CAP_S390_GS 140
> >>   
> >>   #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
> > 
> > Thanks Stephen,
> > 
> > Cc'ing Paulo and Radim.
> > 
> > This does seem a bit of a conflict magnet, and they're part of the user
> > ABI so when the values change upon merge, the intermediate versions
> > before and after require different userland builds.
> > 
> > Should the numbering be decided in advance somehow (i.e. in response to
> > conflicts in linux-next)? I don't particularly want to change the
> > numbering again as others would need rebuilds again, but I only just
> > pushed the MIPS changes, so if I change the MIPS numbering to 138-140,
> > can we expect other branches to continue at 141 so I don't need to
> > change them again?
> > 
> > Alternatively does it make sense to have different ranges reserved for
> > different architectures (like the get one reg numbers)?
> 
> I can live with a changing GS capability number, so keep your number.

Okay, thanks

> In the end I think Radim/Paolo will do the assigment when merging.
> And no userspace should rely on this before this is at least in kvm/next
> Yes, this will be a bit of pain for internal QA, but this worked ok
> for the last 3 or 4 years on our side

Yeh, thats all it is, a bit of a pain, and probably just deserts for
having stuff out of tree for any length of time :)

Cheers
James